Simon Valleau

The parties reached a final consent on all substantive issues regarding a parenting plan for their five-year-old son, leaving only costs to be determined.

The applicant father had originally sought an equal time-sharing arrangement and reduced child support but abandoned these claims at the final settlement conference after firing his lawyer.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found the father's 'all or nothing' approach unreasonable and not child-focused, noting he could have achieved his goals gradually.

The respondent mother was entirely successful and was awarded costs of $6,000.

The plaintiffs moved to strike the defendant’s statement of defence for failure to pay a prior $12,500 costs award arising from a motion to lift the bankruptcy stay under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The defendant had declared bankruptcy before the costs order was made and argued the costs constituted a provable claim in bankruptcy rather than a personal post‑bankruptcy liability.

The court considered Rule 57.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the distinction in bankruptcy law between plaintiff’s and defendant’s costs.

Applying the jurisprudence flowing from Re British Gold Fields of West Africa Ltd., the court held the costs were provable in bankruptcy and did not create a personal post‑bankruptcy obligation absent a later fraud finding under s. 178 of the BIA.

The motion to strike the defence was dismissed.

A construction lien action arising from renovations to one property prompted competing motions concerning claims related to a separate renovation project at another property.

The lien claimant sought to add the other property’s owner as a defendant and amend its claim to recover unpaid invoices relating to that project, while the defendant sought to add that owner as a plaintiff by counterclaim and include claims for overpayments.

The court held that s. 55(1) of the Construction Lien Act restricts lien claimants from joining unrelated contract claims and therefore refused the requested amendment and joinder.

However, under s. 55(2) the defendant’s counterclaim against the lien claimant could include claims arising from another contract between the same parties, even if unrelated to the improvement.

The motion to sever those portions of the counterclaim was dismissed, while both motions to add the additional party failed.

The appellant motor vehicle dealer sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding actual damage to vehicles.

The Divisional Court rejected the proposed evidence, applying the Sengmueller test.

The court found the evidence was not relevant to the core issue of non-disclosure of acquisition documents, was readily available at the time of the original hearing, and would not have affected the tribunal's result.

The appellant municipality appealed the acquittal of the respondents on a charge of breaching a zoning by-law by storing used tires on their agricultural property.

The lower courts acquitted the respondents on the basis that the tires were intended to be used as building material for fences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the accumulation of thousands of tires over a three-month period constituted 'storage' in contravention of the by-law, regardless of the eventual intended use.

The acquittals were set aside, convictions entered, and nominal fines imposed.